Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues in the public aware of the reason for my absence.

Some Council Burgo.

Some Council Choquett, I'm ready to inform you that I'm unable to attend tonight's committee meeting because I will be attending a ward one neighborhood meeting.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues in the public aware of the reasons for my absence.

Motion received and place on file by Council Lopes.

Second by Councillor Roy.

All in favor, say aye.

I've it.

Item number one communication, Council Giesta submitting a letter from Blair Bailey, General Counsel for the New Bedford Port Authority regarding the port authorities vote to sell the real property known and numbered as 276 MacArthur Drive, incorporating New Bedford assessors map 59, lots 170, 171, 173, and 149 and 217.

It was referred here on September 25th, 2025.

Second.

The ayes have it.

Evening.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Give us a brief overview as to what uh these lots are and what we're going to do with it.

So for those of you you already know this, but the all the city property down in the waterfront is subject to the jurisdiction of the port authority.

So everything is in our under our control, but there's some exceptions to that in our enabling legislation.

When we want to dispose of a piece of property, we have to generally the way that as it says in my letter, the way our enabling legislation is written, I'm supposed to come to you with a done deal with an RFP, so you approve the deal.

This is what we're doing.

We're going to put an RFP out.

And those of you that know the maritime terminal property, that is a very large building and a very large piece of property, and it makes us $12,000 a year.

And isn't worth the $25 million investment for $45 more years of that lease.

We're rebuilding Leonard's Wharf.

We need to do Homer's Wharf next.

Those are our priorities.

Any purchaser of this property, so it's an open RFP.

Anybody can bid, but anybody bidding has to take it subject to that lease.

That is the law.

They are committed to the city.

They're from the North End.

They have a business.

They want to put a lot of money into this property.

However, since at the end of the lease, they wouldn't own the building, the bank is obviously a little res reticent to loan them a substantial amount of money on that property because at the end of the day it's not theirs and it wouldn't continue to be there.

So that's sort of the where they're stuck in this process.

So we have to go out to bid.

It's an open RFP.

Anybody can bid on it.

We will get the bids once we get the bids, they'll come back to the council for approval of the deal.

But that's the way it works.

Thank you, Blair.

Hold on, my uh colleagues.

Uh if you're uh wearing a hat in the chamber, can I just kindly ask you to remove it?

Thank you.

Uh Chair recognizes Council Lopes.

Thank you, Council Chair.

So, Attorney Bailey, I'm assuming the RFP will be written in a manual that will state that they'll be responsible for the maintenance up here, upkeep and repair of the facility?

Correct.

So the city will have no liability associated with any of the associated maintenance to deferred maintenance.

No, we were selling it as is where is and they will assume the liability to do that.

Thank you, Attorney Bailey.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Council.

Chair recognizes Council Pereira.

Thank you.

So, Blair, uh in regards to uh this, you know, obviously on the water and the sensitivity of of uh in the port area, the sensitivity of uh permitting and scheduling uh uh permitting and and environmental concerns and everything like that.

The repairs that are needed are feasible, yes.

Yes.

Okay, it's just expensive.

They they are very expensive.

Um we can actually assist anybody, uh whoever the the bidder may be, but we can assist in getting that permitting done quickly uh because we we still have the ability to utilize some of the the permitting process for the superfund site, so we can probably get that done fast for them.

Just my my my thought process is just that it, especially if uh the the current tenants are the ones that will go and purchase the property as is what makes sense.

I I just want to make sure that we're gonna still they've been tenants for with us for a while.

Just do right by them as well and not just say, okay, here's your building, thank you for you.

Well, whoever runs it, here's your building, catch you later.

No, and then a year they're receiving fines and et cetera.

It's gonna be all that more important.

I think we had that conversation about with State Pier down that it's all having maritime terminal as a as a going entity with the some of the Clementine boats and some other vessels that may come into the harbor with things going on at State Pier, we're gonna need that operational more than ever.

Okay.

Yeah, that's the that was just my concern.

Uh council Lopes spoke about the liability, but moving forward, that next step is is helping them, assisting them over the uh over the finish line when it comes to especially in the early stages, right, with the permitting and stuff, the financing is on them.

But I I just I I have no no problem with going through with this and and doing this.

And I appreciate you coming before us, but I just want to make sure we're gonna take that next step as well and help.

Absolutely.

Going to help them whatever permits we need to get them.

Sound sounds great.

Thank you, uh Blair.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Counselor.

Uh any other questions from the body without objection from the chair.

Uh Blair, uh uh thank you.

Um this year, as you said, um is just a brief overview to let the general public know what's going on down there, so that way when things do come up, it's uh we didn't know that this was getting up, this was going for sale.

This is because you guys have jurisdiction over I used to think when I before I started doing tax title for the city that nobody read the legal ads that everybody puts in the paper, and then I found out apparently everybody reads them.

So I I didn't want to know, I didn't want this body to have a call from a constituent saying what's going on with a piece of property being sold down by the port, by the port authority.

So I wanted to come here first before we put the RFP out so that this body has all the information you need to answer any questions that come up.

Happy to answer constituent questions if you get some still.

But I I just wanted to make sure that we told you first and then we post the RFP.

Because I I know somebody's gonna read it and call.

Well, I I thank you for being proactive in that um because you're a hundred percent right.

We we would some of us would get calls about it.

So uh thank you.

Um anybody have any other questions?

I have uh one for attorney uh Darek Towski, if you if you could please.

Thank you, David, for uh I just had a quick question about uh the council's or the the this body's um role.

They have no role in this property whatsoever, right?

That doesn't have to be a motion to come out and we're not referring it out or anything.

At some point, the council need, I think the way the let the legislation that that that um has redeveloped and um of the port of port authority.

That it doesn't have to be a motion to come out and we're not referring it out or any at some point the council need I think the way the let the legislation that that that um has redeveloped and um of the port author is it port authority port authority um requires a council vote, but Mr.

Bailey is here saying he's just making you aware that they're going out with an RFP so that you're aware of it.

Right.

And then I think once the proposals come, they'll select one and then just get your approval on it.

It doesn't go through the same process in the code as you would sell municipal property.

It's not that type of process, it's just it'll be one vote of the council to up or down on whatever the Port Authority um selects.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you very much.

So there wouldn't be anything today until the process is completed by by Mr.

Bailey.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you, David.

Okay, colleagues, anything further?

Yeah, yep.

Sir Chair recognizes Council Pereira.

I just have one last question.

Sure.

Yeah.

Uh Blair, in regards to the RFP process, um the uh grading that you're going to do on the proposals return.

Will it take into account what's allowed in the use because of the Oh, yes, okay.

It's it's a designated port area.

So we we um uh at no point would I even think of selling property that wouldn't stay DPA use and waterfront use?

Yeah, what I don't want is someone to not realize that it has to be exclusively uses allowed in the DPA.

No, we'll uh we'll actually um and I'm happy to share it once we put it out, but yeah, the RFP will specify because I want to make sure everybody's a hundred percent clear.

I'm going to attach the conditions report I have so everybody knows the state of the property.

I'm going to attach the lease.

I will make sure that it says DPA in it as many times as we can.

Yeah.

So that we nobody, yeah, I don't want anybody not understand what they're getting.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Counselor.

With no further questions, the motion or for out for no further action.

Second.

Motion referral to no further action by Council Pereira, second by counselor lopes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number two.

Communication.

Mayor Mitchell to the city council submitting requests for proposals for the disposition and the development of the former police station.

Number two, located at 170 Cove Street, the new Bedford Armory located at 989 Pleasant Street, the former Phillips Avenue School located at 249 Phillips Avenue, the former Horatio A.

Kempton School located at 135 Shamid Avenue, and the former William H.

Taylor School located at 620 Brock Avenue.

It was referred to on May 12, 2026.

2A is the RFP for the former police station located at 170 Cove Street, uh referred on May 12th, 2026.

2B is the RFP for the New Bedford Armory located at 989 Pleasant Street, referred on May 12th, 2026.

2C is the RFP, former Phillips Avenue School located at 249 Phillips Avenue, referred on May 12, 2026.

2D is a RFP for the formal Horatio A.

Kempton School located at 135 Shamid Avenue, referred here in May 12th, 2026.

And 2E is the RFP for the former William H.

Taylor School located at 620 Brock Avenue, referred here on May 12, 2026.

Motion receive and place on file items two through two E by Councillor Lopes.

Second by Councilor Gomes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

The ayes have it.

Thank you, Director, for being here tonight.

Just give a overview as to what we're looking to do here.

Absolutely.

I'll start with looking at this in the next item with a Yogi Berra quote.

That it's like deja vu all over again.

It is in some respects with at least two of these.

Those came just after we had issued RFPs on Fire Station 3 and Fire Station 11.

We learned in the Fire Station 3 and 11 process that there was a little bit of a legal snag with the construction of our RFP.

Not that anybody did anything wrong necessarily, but that it came at a time where bank lending tightened up significantly and banks were hesitant to make loans on properties that had strong claw clawback provision language for the municipality.

So without actually formally reviewing the responses we got on the schools, uh we pulled those RFPs back, recognizing that it was likely to be a problem on those as well.

Um from Councillor Pemberton and others in um getting Phillips Avenue School back out there.

Uh likewise uh we've moved uh ahead with the former armory uh and would like to move that uh to RFP.

Um and we likewise have the clawback issue on 170 Cove Street, the former police station.

Um so what we have before you tonight is a a very simple tweak to the Cove Street Police Station RFP.

Basically, that is exactly the one that you've approved previously without the restrictive clawback language in it.

Uh our recommendation would be to reissue that way.

Um we have pretty significantly altered the RFPs for the others.

So our previous RFPs on those were based on an older template.

Um having seen the um the AMC, the golf course process play out, um it's our suggestion.

We think it's a superior model uh to come to you and ask for permission to issue those RFPs uh with the understanding that we'll come back at a later date and ask for your permission to negotiate and enter into a PNS with the developer.

That would give us more flexibility and latitude than the way we did it before.

So some of you may be frustrated, right?

We issued RFPs, we had to claw them back, it's taken a year to get things back together and get back on the agenda tonight.

Um we couldn't alter the RFPs, even though we recognized there was a problem because it was an unfair situation to any other potential bidders.

You can't just change things midstream.

But if we save some latitude for ourselves to address things in negotiating a purchase and sale agreement later, it does mean coming to an additional meeting, but it allows for I I think the acknowledgement of the realities of development and lending and uh getting these projects moving today, which is that they require some flexibility.

So for example, someone could propose to us that they want to renovate uh or redevelop the Taylor school property, uh and they might come to us and say that our timeline for that is um I don't know 32 months or something.

Uh if we put in our RFP that the timeline needs to be 24 months, we really don't have the flexibility to give them 32 months.

If we can address that in the purchase and sale agreement phase, uh we can come up, I think, with more realistic milestones and then come back to the council and say, here's the here's an agreement we think works well for the city and works well for this development to move forward.

Um so that's uh in in effect our position.

Um I will say that the um RFPs are all geared toward uh housing development in general.

I think we allow for proposals that are not strictly housing development at the armory, given the complexities of redeveloping that building.

Um we have a preference for projects that will move quickly, which tends to mean a preference for projects that'll be market rate that aren't going to wait around for uh to accumulate subsidies for multiple years and permits and all the things that come with it.

So we want things to move quickly, uh especially given the delays that we've had to date.

I'm happy to talk about any of the the details.

I know it's a lot to to bring several of these to you at the same time.

Uh the template is largely similar.

The Taylor School one is a little bit more explicit in preferring market rate development.

The others are nearly identical.

Um like I said, we're here for approval to issue these at some point in the near future.

Um we don't plan to issue them all at the same time.

I think we want to be strategic that we don't want to saturate the market with a bunch of RFPs at the same time uh and then get inundated with responses back at the same time and and have this protracted process.

We want to be fair in how these are um brought about and we want to have a robust competition among developers that are interested in them.

Thank you.

Uh Chair recognizes Council Lopes.

Thank you, Chairman.

So uh Josh, two quick questions, and I understand both sides of the house, the finance and the council side.

I'm assuming the purchase and sales agreement that'll be drafted will still have a clawback provision, but it will allow a lot more leniency in the time frame to obtain financing, a gain permits, and then begin construction.

Can you explain how that's gonna look if it's already been worked out yet?

Well, we haven't worked it out.

I think it'll be subject to negotiation.

I don't want to foreclose on any potential agreement, but I would say that it allows for a much more realistic and flexible creation of that construct, right?

So in the previous iteration of the RFPs, I think we said you need to develop these buildings in 24 months, but we can claw them back.

And your experience in the banking world to a banker, you would go, I have no recourse if this takes 24 months and one day, I'm gonna lose my loan, I'm gonna lose my investment, and I'm not gonna have the ability to cure it.

Um we want to avoid that.

We recognize that for example the Taylor School could be a a very significant redevelopment project, right?

There's land, there's an old school building that might be eligible for historic tax credits.

That might take time.

We want the ability to weigh a proposal that might take four years there against one that might take 12 months, where the four-year version might be very great, uh, but we need to craft something that works and protects the city.

Um whereas that might not be a problem with another one, but it might be fewer units or less impact or less local jobs or whatever it may be.

Um we think that in that negotiation phase we can work that out.

So if you're the developer and you come to us, we select you, you the council selects you, uh, and you say it's gonna take me 48 months, and by month eight, I'm gonna have permitting approval, and by month 14 I'm gonna have my lending lined up.

Uh by month 24, I might have completed the subsidies from the state if that's what I'm waiting for, whatever it may be.

We can set those milestones in that agreement and then hold somebody accountable to that agreement and also articulate exactly how the clawback would work, should we be interested in doing that.

I understand it being a lot more advantageous to your office.

My concern is I don't want another civil defense disaster where almost nine years that property sat vacant from the initial RFP to trying to claw it back.

You know, Council Gomes and I are the only two people that understand what happened with that civil defense and how much resources the solicitor's office exhausted in monies to bring that property back into to be sold.

Because if my memory is correct, I think we got 150,000 for it, and our legal bill was in excess of a quarter of a million.

Can't believe it.

So my concern is, and I understand we're weakening the clawback provision to make it more advantageous, but I also don't want to make it so advantageous that we spend potentially could spend more in legal defense to obtain obtain something that's not able to be built in a time frame that is advantageous to the developer and not the city.

So that's my only concern about changing the clawback.

So for me, I would be really interested to see once the RFP had submitted and purchase and sales agreements are being drafted.

For me, the most important language will be that section that allows this the recourse that the city potentially could need if there is an issue of default or something else down the road.

Yep, noted.

We'll we'll we'll definitely bring that with us when it comes time to select proposals and get into that negotiation.

I think Dunbar School might be another example, it's comparable.

It's you know, we're still waiting for that to be redeveloped years after that was initially RFP'd.

So uh we appreciate the comments.

Thank you, Count.

Thank you, Josh.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Counselor.

Chair recognizes Council Pereira.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So, Josh, uh kind of piggybacking off of the colleagues spoke before me, uh prelimin even before we get to the purchase and sales uh section during the RFP process.

If the proposals submitted to us uh uh fail to convince this body of their ability to complete the project, we can reject the RFPs altogether.

That's correct.

And say at this time it's not advantageous to the city and don't have to even proceed forward with the RFP process any further.

That's correct.

So using uh the Kempton School as an example, if we were to release that RFP, say October 1st, uh and we have responses back, and we're here realistically, probably December, January, something like that.

We might come to you with a recommendation one way or another, and you might say, we don't think that this is a good plan, we don't like this, that there's no willingness to do a clawback, whatever it may be.

You can ask the developer questions.

So the the next opportunity you'll have is to select that developer like we're gonna do tonight with the other properties, uh, and then there will be a purchase and sale negotiation phase, and then we'll come back again and say, you know, we've come to terms, here's the arrangement we'd like to move forward with, as opposed to not having that step, where the council's decision that night is basically final and we're bound to the terms of the RFP in a very rigid way.

Right.

Okay.

And then uh but the the uh the authority to still say no altogether is a possibility.

Yep, you have that ability right up to the end until the purchase and sale agreements signed.

Sure.

Okay.

And then my other question is you you said that you you're gonna come with a recommend you might come with a recommendation.

I know previously that occurred.

Who sits on the committee, who forms it, how is who is a part of that?

Is that determined yet?

No, it's not determined yet.

Uh in my experience, they've come together in sort of an ad hoc way.

Right.

Uh, we've tended to think of um getting a good cross-section across city government.

So in some cases it's been folks from my office.

It's often involves the planning office.

Uh I've asked Anne Lauro to do it a number of times given her knowledge of historic buildings and the sensitivity, uh, given the fact that we're often RFPing historic buildings that will be be come before the historic commission and before her office.

Um we've at times asked D FFM given their their familiarity with the buildings.

But there's no um, as I understand it, there's no strict criteria on how that works.

Yeah, I know there's no strict criteria.

I I am I would like to see maybe some more um uh uh rigidness surrounding that.

Um maybe more I'm not saying we have to pick the exact person, but uh a guarantee of a member of the planning department, a m guarantee of the member of this department, um and and of your department, etc.

So that there's just a j some general awareness that hey, I know a member of the planning department will be there.

I know a member of the building department will be there.

I know a member of uh community housing development will be there.

And and just to have some structure in that rather than just okay, I grab five people together and this is what we're gonna say.

So not that I don't trust your judgment, but it's always good to have something in practice moving forward so that if you're not able to participate or this needs to go to someone else uh to take the lead on, that the there is some sort of formality there.

Yeah?

Okay.

I have no objection to that.

All right, very good.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

At this time, I have no further questions.

Thank you, Counselor.

Uh any other colleagues have any questions from the chair with uh any without objection?

No objection.

Thank you.

Uh Josh, the obviously tonight um, you know, uh barring any unforeseen circumstances we allow you guys to uh formulate the uh the RFPs and and and whatnot.

Do you have a priority structure as to what you're looking to do first, which properties or what what's that gonna look like?

Uh because you you didn't want to put them all out at once, but is it gonna be the police station two in the Kempton school, or what's what's the thought process as to what properties are gonna go out first?

Yeah, I appreciate it.

So I think police station two we want to go out immediately.

Um that's almost different than the round of new properties in my view.

Um as for the schools in the armory, um I I think it it really doesn't so much matter.

We've thought about maybe packaging them two at a time.

Um the the thinking on that is is is this you know it is a it is a burden to review all of them at the same time, but that's not really the reason why we can't do that.

We certainly could.

Um we'd like to see these properties developed by different developers.

Uh that's one strategy.

Uh so our f I think diversification is good.

Um putting all our eggs in the basket of a developer that might seek to submit basically identical proposals at a number of properties is probably not in our best interest.

Um we could also determine that back when we're scoring them.

Uh but we think that having them come up at different times will um grab different sections of the market.

Uh there are developers that might be finishing a project right now that won't bid on a project that's put out to RFP right now from the city new Bedford, but might in October or November.

And so you get a kind of different cross-section and different audience every time.

Uh what we want more most is high quality development at each of these sites, and then we want that to happen as quickly as possible.

We recognize we're in a housing shortage.

Uh we recognize that uh sometimes these projects can take five, 10 10 years in some cases, and we don't want that.

We want them to move forward quickly.

And I think the best way for them to move forward quickly uh is for them to move forward in parallel and not tie up the capacity of any one group.

And I think we have a better chance of accomplishing that if we stagger their release.

Um whether that's Taylor and the armory first and Kempton and another later, um, doesn't really so much matter to me uh as long as we're able to um get those out at the right times.

There's also some community engagement involved, and so if we can um kind of piggyback on other community engagement exam events.

For example, um, you know, we have some things planned in that armory neighborhood.

Uh we might be able to get more opinions on you know what should go there and tie that into the process and time things appropriately.

So it's really those variables.

Um sorry I don't have anything a little bit more definitive, but um I'm open to suggestion if there's something you'd like to see.

Yeah, no, well, I thank you for at least elaborating on it, because uh like I said, I I just I know you didn't want to put them all out at once, and not that your office isn't capable of handling all of that, but um just trying to you know see what your thought process was as far as priority.

Um so thank you.

Uh Chair recognizes Councillor Roy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, Josh.

Nice to see you again.

Good to see you again.

Um I heard you say something earlier about expediency and and you want to get these properties developed very quickly, so you expect that most of these properties will contain market rate um rentals.

I think some some will.

Uh I I suspect all the properties will to some extent.

Yep.

Um I think some will require more subsidy than others to be realistically viable.

And so there may be um some that have a higher proportion of subsidized units.

Okay.

Um we we don't necessarily have a preference, but it does introduce time.

Uh and so uh some projects I think are primed for relatively quick market rate development that don't rely on subsidy sources that can take a while to accumulate.

So for example, historic tax credits, while they don't introduce income restriction, they can take three or four years, sometimes longer to accumulate uh the low-income housing tax credit, which is a kind of a go-to resource for some developers with these properties.

Um those can take upwards of four or five years.

And so, you know, I use the example of the Dunbar School, which hasn't moved forward.

That's part of a a collection of sites that are packaged as one low-income housing tax credit project done by a very high quality developer uh that's had a lot of success here in the city.

Uh but it's an example of how those things can take eight or nine years at times.

And so uh it would be a mistake, I think, for us to commit all of these buildings to development in that manner.

Um so I think we need some diversification there, but uh there's not a hard and fast strategy with most buildings.

Um in the Taylor school case, we've established a a a preference or requirement that 80% of the units be market rate.

We have preferences on the others, but no such hard requirement.

Is 80% a high is a high number for market rate?

I mean, a lot of projects are.

I mean, we have a mix.

We have some, you know, we cut the ribbon today on a hundred percent market rate project.

Um before that we've cut a lot of ribbons downtown in recent months on projects that are 80% income restricted.

And so um, you know, we try to achieve a balance.

Okay.

Uh the reason why we feel that way on Taylor is because we feel like it's it's location, um, the size of the land there uh allows for more financial feasibility in a market rate project, whereas I think being realistic, the armory is likely to be an extremely cost uh uh uh high cost redevelopment project that will require historic tax credits and probably low income housing tax credits and probably the full kitchen sink of programs, and so um that might be one where using those subsidies takes longer, does create income restricted units, um, but also allows for the the revitalization and renovation of a key historic property.

Um so that's sort of the way we're thinking about it.

Well, thank you.

I appreciate your time.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Counselor.

Chair recognizes Counselor A.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening, Josh.

Good evening.

Good to see you.

Um can you talk a little bit about the process um from the last time we spoke uh in regards to your office when it comes to marketing these RFPs, engaging developers, because beyond your already um very vast and deep uh Rolodex, if you will, um, in a perfect world, we put these things out and it all count comes flocking in, right?

All the offers, but we know that that doesn't happen.

It takes some legwork, some networking, if you will.

Um what traditional or non-traditional means are you and your team doing uh to make sure folks know in the in the development community, hey, we have these RFPs out, we're open for business in New Bedford, we're slashing the red tape in my office, we're doing these things.

Um how does that kind of play out or have things changed over the last couple of months and how talk about the work you've been doing with that kind of stuff?

Yeah, no, I I appreciate the question.

Um first I want to say that uh Molly and her team in purchasing do a really great job marketing all things procurement and in this case disposition and uh their use of the bidnet system, which has a wide reach of folks that are interested in surplus property and property dispositions like that, get these RFPs in front of a lot of people without us lifting a finger.

Um that said, um we we have worked really hard to build relationships and put out the signal that New Bedford is open for business and open for housing development.

Uh we saw when we RFP'd Kempton and Taylor last year, uh around this time, a really strong response.

Uh I want to say like an almost unprecedented response.

I think we got seven or eight responses on each building.

Um we saw upwards of 70 or 80 firms uh sign up to get the RFP and it signal their intent that they were interested.

Um we had to do basically crowd control at the site visits.

There were so many people showing up, many of whom had never done a project in New Bedford before, but saw it as a good opportunity to come down.

That's another reason why, frankly, we think it's a good idea to stagger the RFPs a little bit.

We can keep that momentum throughout the year.

Um I I'll say we we promoted it on social media.

Um I find that LinkedIn has a really good um Yeah, it's a whole separate reach in the in the development community.

Um I will also say it's it these RFPs are something of an awkward moment for our office.

Um we are often the developer's friend and advocate through you know permitting and through identifying financing sources and so on.

And so we're happy to run point on these because we want to make sure that these buildings get onto the market and we're creating housing in them, but we flip a switch and become really sort of like the umpire uh for the duration that those that these procurements or dispositions are out there.

So um though we may want to help a developer in a technical assistance sense that we would almost always offer um when we're like the arbiter calling balls and strikes of who gets the RFP and who doesn't, we really disengage from that process and say, you know, when this the ink is dry on this, we can you come up for air and we can um we can sort of be your ally again and go in and chasing those financing sources.

But in the meantime, uh it's unlike us, but we really don't want to be helpful because it might favor someone over another.

So we stay uh out of the fray there.

We leave that to the folks in purchasing who do a really great job.

Well, I would think the new Bedford Economic Development Council and their team must play a role in this as well.

I know you can't speak for Mr.

Santos, but I mean there's gotta be a hand in glove relationship here, is that correct?

Yeah, likewise, they've been very helpful in marketing the RFP.

They have um wide reach through uh their own channels through uh newsletters and email lists and then their own industry contacts, and that's been helpful as well.

Some of the bidders and some of the interested parties the last time around came through their networks.

All right.

All right, well, thank you, Josh.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Counselor.

Okay.

Uh with does anybody have any other questions for anybody else?

Uh, attorney Geratowski or a member of the city solicitors.

No.

Okay.

Your pleasure, colleagues.

All over recommendation refer to the full city council for the drafting and the releasing of the RFPs for 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E.

Motion made to uh allow the property committee to uh relinquish power to uh release to appropriate RFPs for items 2A through 2E by Councillor Umloops, second by Councillor Gomes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The click read item number three.

Item number three is communication, Molly Gilfeather Rodriguez.

Uh Chief Procurement Officer, City of New Bedford to Councillor Sean Oliver, Chair City Property Committee submitting proposals in response to the city's request for proposals for the disposition of Fire Station 3 and 11.

The proposals were evaluated by a committee of three representatives from the city's Office of Housing and Community Development, who unanimously recommend the award of Fire Station 3 to South Coast Investments and Fire Station 11 to I'm sorry, I do it all the time.

Thank you, Gaboy.

Okay, thank you.

I know you at least I know your first name correctly, so uh development received here on May 11, 2026.

3A is a proposal um submitted by South Coast Investments for the development of fire station number three located at 834 Kempton Street.

3B is uh proposal submitted by Divine Contractors Incorporated Freedom Realty Group for the development of Fire Station 3 located at 834 Kempton Street and a proposal submitted by Gavush uh Development for the development of Fire Station 11 located at 745 Brock Avenue uh received here on May 11, 2026, and 3D is a proposal by Divine Contractors Incorporated Freedom Reality for the redevelopment of Fire Station 11 located at 754 Brock Avenue, received here on May 11, 2026, 33A, 3B, 3C, and 3D are now before you.

Motion received in place on file three through three D by Councillor Gomes, second by Councillor Roy.

All in favor?

All right.

Opposed.

The ayes haven't.

Do you want to present?

Do you want is Molly?

Do you want to have it?

Awesome.

All right.

All right.

Back again.

Um good evening.

Uh so I sort of set the table for these in my presentation on the previous item.

Um, but reviewing the motion, uh just recapping the process.

If I can get the right pages out.

Here we go.

Uh so given that clawback history and the difficulty that was encountered before, uh both South Coast Investments and uh GovG development uh were selected last time around uh but ran into that clawback issue, uh which the council really wanted to rectify.

There was no way to rectify it short of reissuing the RFPs.

And so we were happy to do that.

Uh Molly and her team made those adjustments, reissued the RFPs.

We got these responses back uh late winter, early spring, uh, and have just been uh looking to get before the council with all these other items.

Uh we're here tonight.

We uh a team of three reviewed uh proposals received from uh Kavuj Development uh and uh Divine Contractors uh slash Freedom Realty Group on uh Fire Station 11 and South Coast Investments and Divine Contractors Freedom Realty Group on Fire Station 3.

Um I did not personally review them, they were reviewed uh by Ashley Eaton and Jordan Latham in my office as well as Ann Lauro.

Uh and their uh scoring was uh uh pretty uniformly consistent.

They they all gave uh overarching uh ratings of highly advantageous to the um Gavuj development and to South Coast investments on uh 11 and 3 respectively, and advantageous ratings to uh divine uh contract uh divine contractors and freedom realty group.

Um I will say this uh personally familiar with uh both development firms and I'm proud that they're in the running for these properties tonight.

I look around the room.

I think this is a triumph of the local development ecosystem that we've really been trying to foster.

Um so both development groups uh have done comparable projects throughout the city and have established that they're credible, uh have put real units online quickly.

Uh what ultimately separated them was um I think just the just the a level of detail in the proposal.

And so uh we found that uh Gavuj and South Coast investments on those respective fire stations uh had a little bit more detailed budget plans and then more detailed plans for the sites, both in terms of site plan and floor plans, um in some cases shorter timelines, uh comparable budgets, um divine uh contractors, Freedom Realty uh had slightly more uh in their financial offer of 75,000 per building uh uh against 50,000 from the other firms.

Um and to be clear, we rated them advantageous as well.

Uh we just found the other firm was highly advantageous given their level of preparation.

Uh I don't think we I don't think it's fair to consider the past um selection of the council, but I will say that I think the uh the longer they've been engaged with these properties probably allowed for a more detailed submission, and so that was ultimately the the separation.

Uh we think that both firms are uh highly capable and uh will continue to build great things here in the city, whether it's these fire stations or otherwise, but our recommendation is to move forward with Gavuj development on Fire Station 11 uh and South Coast investments on fire station number three.

I'm happy to talk about any of the specific criteria or ratings if uh if the council would like.

Well, thank you, Josh.

Uh Chair recognizes Councillor Lopes.

Thank you, Chairman.

So Josh, I'm gonna start with the request before I ask a question.

In the future, could we get a copy of the scoring matrix that you use as well as the actual overall scores in the future?

You know, uh we used to get it in the past, and I didn't see it in the package this time, and I always liked seeing where people were grading certain things.

Um because it's just good for my own edification to understand what people see uh in the areas.

Understanding that these two properties have gone through the RFP process before, and I know you haven't done the clawback provision yet, but I'm assuming you have drafted something already with an understanding of the duration of time needed to complete these projects already uh yeah, I mean I think we're we're generally aware of what that process will take.

Um this is unlike what we've proposed to do with the schools moving forward with the purchase and sale agreement phase and some of that flexibility.

I think it was the council's direction last year to to simply remove the clawback language.

Um I would say that uh not that these buildings are unimportant in any way, but the size and scale of the development I think is less likely to encounter issues than um than say a two-acre, you know, historic school site with land to build on.

Uh but that's not to underestimate the complexity of the projects.

And this isn't the the South End fire station that was the biggest concern when we had this discussion last time.

Um in the future I would just like to see the the scoring matrix as well as and you can blank out the names.

I just want to see how how it came through on it.

You know, I don't need to know who did the scoring, that's not important to me.

I just want to see how it came across.

Yeah, I had a chance to review them all and I reviewed them all again today just to have more in my mind.

So I I appreciate the details that your department provided.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Counselor.

Any other colleagues with questions for Director Amoral?

Any other questions for anybody else in attendance?

Okay.

Colleagues, your pleasure.

Somebody's gonna make the motion.

Follow recommendation of the chief procurement officer and the team associated in grant the unanimous recommendation to award fire station three, and I'm gonna screw up later on as well.

So South Coast Investment Inc.

with an overall proposal rating of highly advantageous and fire station number 11 to Gavush development also with an overall proposal rating of highly advantageous.

So motion made to accept the proposal from 3A South Coast Investments and 3C.

No opportunity for no not uh there's there's a motion on the table now to to uh adopt so uh proposals 3C 3A and 3C um to adopt the proposals second by council abrew roll uh doesn't need to be rolling okay and uh so on the motion all in favor aye opposed the ayes have it thank you thank you Josh colleagues uh we have uh items four through follow recommendation of the chairboy waive the readings for items four through twelve and take no further action motion to follow the recommendation from council lopes second by counselor abrew all in favor opposed the ayes have it colleagues saying no second motion to adjourn by counselor abrew second by counselor roy all in favor aye opposed the ayes have it we are adjourned at 747 p.m.

thank you for the